JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J.:- 1. Through the medium of this petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. the inherent jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Samba registered against the petitioners in FIR No. 134/2002, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu in case titled State v. Mohd. Abdullah and others, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 121-A and 123 RPC on the grounds taken in it. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they were arrested by the police of Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu in case FIR No. 134/2002 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 121-A/123 RPC. It is contended that on 13.07.2002, SHO, Police Station, Bahu Fort, Jammu received an information through some reliable sources at about 7 PM to the effect that some militants belonging to some banned organizations with intent to intimidate the Government established by law and to indulge in massacre of innocent persons, had intruded in Rajiv Nagar area, Jammu where they lobbed hand grenades and entered in the Jhuggies and resorted to indiscriminate firing causing death of 29 persons and injuries to about 30 persons. On receipt of this information, a case under Sections 302/307 RPC, 7/25 Arms Act, 3/4 POTA and 4/5 Explosive Substance Act was registered and investigation started. On conclusion of the investigation, it revealed that two militants after commission of the crime had fled from the scene of crime towards Rekha Jungle and police apprehended one militant identified as Pak National, namely, Mohd. Zaman on 02.08.2002, who had sustained injuries in the encounter, to which he succumbed while on his way to the Hospital. On 03.08.2002, another militant, namely, Mohd. Abdullah A-1 was arrested along with arms and ammunition in case FIR No. 40/2002. Later the petitioners were also arrested and offences punishable under Sections 302/307/121/121-A/122/123/212 RPC, 7/25 Arms Act, 3/4 Explosive Substance Act read with Section 120-B RPC were found established against all the accused persons. 2. After investigation, challan was produced in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu on 23.03.2005, who transferred it to the Court of Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu. The case was committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who transferred it to the Court of First Additional District and Sessions judge, Jammu with whom it remained pending till December, 2008. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, who transferred it to the Court of First Additional District and Sessions judge, Jammu with whom it remained pending till December, 2008. 3. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10.11.2008 passed in Cr. Writ Petition No. 310/2005 transferred the case to Sessions Court, Sangrur (Punjab) on the ground that one of the accused, namely, Mohd. Abdullah was lodged in Sangrur Jail (now dead). However, vide order dated 02.12.2011 Hon'ble Supreme Court re-transferred the said case from Sessions Court, Sangrur (Punjab) to the Court of Sessions Judge, Samba, for trial. 4. The petitioners were charged by the learned Additional Judge, Designated Court, Sangrur on 10.01.2011 for concealing the existence of design of Mohd. Abdullah to wage war against Government of India by permitting him to hide at a place in Surankot in Jammu and Kashmir knowing it to be likely that such concealment would facilitate waging war by banned outfits ISI and Laskre Toiba. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is no evidence in support of the charges framed against the petitioners and their prosecution under the alleged offences is barred in terms of the mandate of Sections 196 and 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is complete non-compliance of Section 196 Cr.P.C. and the proceedings against the petitioners are without jurisdiction as the prosecution of the petitioners has been initiated without the authority of the Government of the State or the District Magistrate. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that District Magistrate, Jammu vide letter dated 20.08.2010 accorded post-facto sanction for launching of prosecution against the petitioners-accused. The District Magistrate, Jammu has mentioned that he received letter No. 31683/DPOJ dated 17.08.2010 and after going through the contents of the same acted in exercise of powers vested under Section 7 of the ESA and granted post-facto sanction to prosecute the petitioners under law as prima-facie a case under Section 3/4 of ESA was made out. This sanction has been placed on record by an application filed by learned counsel for respondents. It also transpired from the record that no independent complaint was lodged by the District Magistrate/Government before any authority. So the investigation commenced with the registration of FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Section 121-A and 123 RPC. 7. This sanction has been placed on record by an application filed by learned counsel for respondents. It also transpired from the record that no independent complaint was lodged by the District Magistrate/Government before any authority. So the investigation commenced with the registration of FIR for the commission of offences punishable under Section 121-A and 123 RPC. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangroor has framed charges against the petitioner only under Sections 121-A, and 123 RPC, same are clearly reflected in paragraphs Nos. 4 and 6 of the charge sheet framed by him vide order dated 10.01.2011, thus, quashment of proceedings pertaining only to the petitioners are being sought through the medium of instant petition. 8. In paragraph No. 4 of the charge sheet, it is provided that offence of commission of waging of war by accused Mohd. Abdulla and his Pakistani accomplices was committed in furtherance of criminal conspiracy of Munir Hussain Khan, Sufraz Khan, Shabir Ahmed, Mohd. Ahmed Ganai, Maruth Ahmed Khan and Master Kabiru Din and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 121-A of the Ranbir Penal Code, but heading of Section 121-A envisages conspiracy to commit offence punishable by Section 121 RPC therefore, word 'conspiracy' should be read with Section 120-B RPC. 9. The ground taken in the petition is that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 196 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the FIR as well as the charges framed against the petitioners are in violation of the Rules. 10. To appreciate the controversy, it is apt to refer to Section 196 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- "196. Prosecution of offences against the State. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or DC-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (except Section 127, [Section 171-F, so far as it relates to the offence of personation, or punishable under Section 108-A, or Section 153-A, or Section 294-A, [or Section 295-A] or Section 505 of the Ranbir Penal Code, unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from [the Government or District or such other officer as may be empowered by the Government in this behalf" 11. Plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that no prosecution can be initiated under this Section except on a complaint made by the District Magistrate. Plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that no prosecution can be initiated under this Section except on a complaint made by the District Magistrate. The expression "upon a complaint" used in the aforesaid provision is explicit and significant. 12. In the present case, the District Magistrate, Jammu has accorded post-facto sanction, on the basis of letter of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu dated 17.08.2010 that too eight years after the incident. Police report is not a substitute for a complaint under Section 196 Cr.P.C. Cognizance taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of offence indicated in Section 196 Cr.P.C., in the absence of a complaint by the District Magistrate/Government, would amount to defect of jurisdiction of the Court, which cannot be cured under law. In other words, the prosecution is primarily concerned to see that the prosecution in case of offence under Section 121-A and 123 RPC, covered by prohibition under Section 196 Cr.P.C., shall not commence without complying with the conditions contained therein. 13. Mr. Malik, learned Dy.AG stated that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in case titled Mian Abdul Qayoom v. State & Ors., reported as 2011 (1) S.L.J. 321 : 2011 (1) JKJ 470 [HC]. 14. In that case, petitioner seeks quashment of FIR only, whereas in the present case, after FIR, charges have also been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, therefore, this judgment is not applicable in this case. 15. On perusal of the records, the case law cited and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that cognizance taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur on the basis of FIR and the charge framed, is defective in view of the bar created under Section 196 Cr.P.C. 16. This view is fortified by the judgments rendered in cases titled Sonam Ganbo v. State of J & K, reported as2001 S.L.J. 517: JKJ Soft JKJ/12937, Naziran Bibi & Ors. v. State & Ors., reported in (2005) S.L.J. 118 : 2004 (3) JKJ 609 [HC] and Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as 1995 SC 1785 and as has also been followed and held by this Court in Sheikh Imran and another v. State and others decided on 03.10.2013 reported in 2013 (4) JKJ 520 [HC], incidentally, of which I am the author. 17. 17. Viewed thus, this petition is partly allowed and the charges framed vide order dated 10.01.2011 under Sections 121-A and 123 RPC so far as those pertains to the petitioners, are quashed. 18. Record be returned to the learned trial Court forthwith. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA(s).